More Overtime and a Cold Weather Super Bowl

It's been awhile since I've written anything here. In fact, the last time I wrote there were 4 teams in the Super Bowl hunt. Now there's just one champion.

Today I want to address two main items: overtime, and the possibility of a Super Bowl being held in New York (technically New Jersey, I think, because the location in question would be Giants Stadium).

We'll do the New York [area] Super Bowl first, because I think it'll be shorter. I haven't really read much or followed a whole lot about this topic, other than to scan a headline here and there about New York wanting to host a Super Bowl, and many people being opposed to this idea. In case you hibernate each January/February you know that the Super Bowl is always played in either a domed stadium, or a warm-weather city. It's obvious that those locations are the only ones considered because the league apparently doesn't want weather to be a major factor in "The Big Game." If that's a deal-breaker for you, then New York would NOT be a good choice for the Super Bowl (it doesn't tend to be real balmy in the Meadowlands in early February).

For me, however, it's not a deal-breaker. I see absolutely nothing wrong with playing the Super Bowl in an outdoor cold-weather stadium. Weather's part of the game. Conference Championship games are routinely played in cold-weather cities (Foxboro, Philadelphia, New York, to name just a few of the possibilities) and those games are just two weeks before the Super Bowl (I doubt the average temperature and precipitation is dramatically different in those cities between mid- to late-January and early February). Also, we all remember how fabulous a game the Ice Bowl was when played in Green Bay with the temperature in the -100s (or something like that... I don't actually remember the game itself because I wouldn't be born for some 20 years afterwards). Good games can be played in bad weather. More importantly, good TEAMS can play well in bad weather. It seems to me that playing football in New York in early February is roughly equivalent to playing baseball in New York in early November, which just happened during the most recent World Series (baseball being a warm-weather game, football being a not-necessarily-warm-weather game).

I'd LOVE to hear YOUR thoughts on this matter. Maybe I'm missing some important information that would change my mind.

Next comes overtime. I'm pretty sure I've written on this before, and I don't mean to bore you. I just mainly feel the need to share some pet-peeves of mine when it comes to this discussion.

First of all, let me say that I've softened a bit on the matter. At the beginning of last season I probably would have told you that the NFL overtime rule doesn't need a single tweak. I'm pretty sure that my reasoning for thinking that way was a preemptive defensiveness to the possibility that a team would use the overtime rules as an excuse for why they lost a game, and I didn't like the thought of that happening. What would best articulate my thoughts would be this: You have to play within the current rule, and not use it as an excuse, so understand that the best quarterback in the world might not get a chance to play in OT if your team loses the coin flip and the defense can't get it done. That being said, if you rid your mind of the current model and were asked to come up with an overtime model, the current one is NOT what you'd come up with.

Much of what's swayed me about this stuff is the fact that special teams have changed a LOT since 36 years ago when the current model was implemented. Kickoffs have been moved back, so more kickoffs are being returned (rather than having touchbacks) and field goal kickers are more accurate. Rather than a team in overtime having to go 50-60 yards to get into field goal range, they now often have to go just 30-40. I don't know the perfect solution to this plan, but the change that the NFL Competition Committee is apparently going to look at this offseason would make it (instead of sudden death) the first team to 7 points that wins, which would encourage teams to go for a touchdown on their first possession rather than just playing for the field goal. That might be a decent start.

I promised that I'd share some pet-peeves about the debate about this topic, and I'm a man of my word, so here we go: Peter King is the reporter who I read most regularly when it comes to the NFL, and he writes more about overtime (he's adamantly opposed to the current system) than just about anyone else too. Therefore, he is the one that my two pet peeves are really directed toward.

First, Peter loves to ask his opponents (those who think the current system is fine), "If the coin flip isn't that important, why has almost every OT coin flip winner in history chosen to receive?" Honestly, Peter, as much as I respect your work and love your weekly NFL column, that's a ridiculously stupid question. The answer is, "Because it's more likely that your team will score on offense than it is that they'll score on defense." It's like asking, "Why do NBA teams try so hard to win the jump ball at the beginning of the game?" In football you don't have to have the ball to score, but even the best defenses in the history of football score less often than the worst offenses in the history of football. You choose to receive because that's how you get points. Duh.

Second, Peter likes to cite the statistic that almost 60% of overtime games since 1994 have been won by the coin flip winner. What's important, however, is how many coin flip winners have won on their first possession in overtime. The reason that's important is because Peter's ideal solution would be to change overtime so that each team gets one possession. At the start of the second team's possession, the game becomes sudden-death. Since coin flip winners win on their first possession somewhere around 34% of the time, that leaves about 26% of coin flip winners who win in overtime on their second possession or later -- exactly what Peter would like to see happen. If that doesn't make sense or you can't quite track what I'm saying because I'm unclear, let me put it this way and just ask for your trust a little bit (or you can ask me for clarification): Peter's real stat is 34%, but he cites 60% because it makes him sound overwhelmingly right. The stats aren't wrong, but he uses them misleadingly.

Still, as I mentioned above, I would be in support of a change to the overtime format, but I don't know what the best change might be. Please, feel free to offer your opinions, or to argue with me in the comments. Thanks for sticking with me through this long post.

A bit lengthy: Who I like this weekend

My co-workers can't figure out why I'm pro-Vikings in this weekend's NFC Championship game. I think that there are two reasons for their befuddlement. The first, and probably most obvious, is that they absolutely ripped apart my beloved Cowboys just a few days ago. You're supposed to be upset at the team that just trounced you for at least some sort of reasonable cooling off period (during the season that can usually last about a week... until you get a win, or you shift your ire to the next team that beat's yours, but it gets tougher when it's the loss that ends your season. Apparently in that case many believe that you must hate the team that knocked you out throughout the entire offseason). That reason doesn't apply to me I guess for a few reasons. First, every football fan understands that the likelihood of their team winning the Super Bowl in any given year is actually pretty slim. With 5 Lombardis, the Cowboys have won more (or as many) Super Bowls as any other team except Pittsburgh (6). The goal this season was to win a playoff game, which happened a week and a half ago in high-flying fashion with a rout of the despised Eagles. Obviously, the way the team had played of late created quite a bit of optimism in fans like me. They certainly seemed poised to go on and beat the Vikings and then the Saints and then whomever they faced in South Florida's Super Bowl. But the playoff win will have to do. Now I have a whole offseason to be optimistic about how good they'll be next year!

The other reason I'm in the Minnesota corner is because they're one of my favorite teams too! I love the Cowboys. I like the Broncos and cheer for them whenever they're not playing the Cowboys. I like the Vikings and cheer for them whenever they're not playing the Cowboys (in the event of a Vikings-Broncos matchup, I'd probably support the Broncos outwardly to my Denver friends, classmates, and co-workers, but I'd secretly be hoping for a Vikings victory). I also like Brett Favre. I know that he's waffled his way in and out of retirement (multiple times) and many think he weasled his way out of Green Bay, and last summer into Minnesota, but none of that really bothers me. He's a good guy who LOVES to play the game. If more 25-year olds played like they were little kids in the back yard again, maybe I wouldn't have to admire Favre so much for doing it himself at 40. There are plenty of other players on the Vikes to enjoy too (Jared Allen and Sidney Rice come to mind).

Those who don't understand my purple and gold loyalty this weekend also point to the Saints as the "sentimental favorite," and say that anyone who doesn't really have a horse in the race should be cheering for Drew Brees, the Saints, and the city of New Orleans because of what a Super Bowl would mean to the hurricane-devastated city. While I understand that sentiment, I find myself asking how many years post-Katrina we're expected to hope for a Saints Super Bowl? It's been, what, 4 years? I'm not trying to minimize the suffering of the people of the city or anything. I hope we're all still doing everything we can to care for the displaced families, and to help rebuild New Orleans and everything, but if it gets to be 2015 and the Saints still haven't won a Super Bowl, are they still the "sentimental favorite?" What about 2020? 2030? I guess I just think it could be argued that Brett Favre's story can be as sentimental as the Saints'.

Anywho... just my thinking.

(And in case you're wondering, I'd LOVE to see a Manning-Favre Super Bowl, and that's what I'll be cheering for.)

Africa

There's an episode of the BBC series Planet Earth in which a pride of lions takes down and eats a young elephant. Lions don't ordinarily attack elephants, but these lions were especially hungry. You'd think that an elephant might be able to hold his own against lions, but as soon as the hunt begins every viewer knows that it's just a matter of time before the ferocity and relentlessness of the lions expose how completely outmatched the elephant is. With fighting not an option, the elephant can only hope to run away... but he stands no chance.

That's what I felt like I was watching in yesterday's Cowboys-Vikings game.

Playoff report

For the third time this season, and the second time in 7 days, the Cowboys absolutely OWNED the Philadelphia Eagles to earn the team's first playoff victory since the 1996 season.

Saturday's game made me think that Jason Garrett really does have something of a clue. His offensive game plan was basically flawless. With an offense as multi-faceted as his is, the key seems to be MIX IT UP! And that's what he did. Felix Jones got the bulk of the carries, and he finished the game with close to 150 yards (averaging somewhere around TEN yards per rush -- not normal, but quite good). Tony Romo continued to look like an unflappable veteran, avoiding pressure from the Eagles' blitzing schemes (which came quite frequently). Roy Williams was even sighted a few times.

The defense was more of the same: smothering. McNabb was pressured all night long. I don't think he took too many sacks, but he was forced out of the pocket, forced into an intentional grounding call, and pretty much just didn't look like some elite playoff veteran quarterback.

Next comes the Minnesota Vikings. I must tread lightly here, because I have readers and family members who are Vikings fans. Fortunately for the family, we're all good-natured about football, and we like it when both the Vikes AND Cowboys do well... so I really think we'll all still be speaking to one another after this week's game.

All I'm going to say about Sunday's game is... it's a better matchup for the Cowboys than for the Vikings, in my opinion. Also, Minnesota's two offensive tackles are going to have their hands full trying to protect their (admittedly fantastic) 40-year old less-mobile-than-McNabb quarterback against the likes of DeMarcus Ware and Anthony Spencer; two of the most bloodthirsty defenders in the league over the last month. Brett Favre just might wake up sorer on Monday morning than he ever has.

I'd continue (and I might over the rest of the week), but I fear my youngest brother would physically attack me if I didn't post something soon.

The weekly Jake report

I'll try my hardest not to recount all the statistics from today's SHELLACKING of the Philadelphia Eagles (oh, how sweet it is). Suffice it to say, Dallas played well in just about every aspect of the game, and took an absolute pounding to what was, before today, the hottest team in the NFC. Back-to-back shutouts from the Dallas D? Perhaps Wade Philips DOES have a clue?

It's going to be a difficult task to try and beat the Eagles for the third time this season when they square off on Saturday night at Cowboys Stadium in the wildcard round of the playoffs, but if there's been a Cowboys team in the last decade that appeared poised to do it, it's this year's team. The defense has been absolutely stellar in recent games. The offense is as good as it's been all season. Miles Austin is, in a word, amazing. Tony Romo has been on fire since Thanksgiving. He's thrown two interceptions (one in each of his last two games), and neither of them were turned into points by the other team.

[Sidenote: In the end, an interception is an interception that rightfully goes against the quarterback, even when it's not his fault. Although that's true, often the nature of the interceptions can tell you a lot about the state of your team/offense/quarterback. The two that Romo has thrown since December began were both fluky, and not really his fault. The first one bounced off the hands of receiver Roy Williams (when a quarterback hits his receiver in the hands and suffers an INT as a result, how do you fault him?). The second, in todays' game against the Eagles, came when Eagles' defensive back Asante Samuel batted a thrown ball and then came down with it. Again, these shouldn't be minimized too much. BUT, the nature of these interceptions illustrate that the poor decision-making of Romo's past is (at least temporarily) long gone. These weren't INTs of immaturity, forced throws, or bad decisions. They were flukes. K, all done with my sidenote.]

In other FUN news, the Giants looked terrible and got absolutely spanked.

So, if Dallas beats Philadelphia for the third time this season and makes it through the wildcard round, they will then head to Minnesota to take on Brett Favre and the Vikings. I hope my family still likes each other after that (potential) matchup is over (those in my family who aren't primarily Cowboys fans are primarily Vikings fans). It'd be fun.

Playoff bound!

Dallas shutout the Washington Redskins. It was their first shutout since 2003 when they shutout... the Washington Redskins. The Wade Phillips defense has become one of the best in the league, and that's going to need to continue if the 'Boys plan to win their first playoff game in some embarrassingly long amount of time.

Sunday afternoon the Cowboys take on the Eagles in Arlington for the division championship. The Eagles control their own destiny with respect to the NFC's #2 seed and a 1st-round bye, so the game has a 3 or 4-seed swing on the line for Philadelphia (Dallas is technically still in the running for the #2 seed, but they'd need some help from other teams losing).

If Dallas wins, it's also possible that the Eagles would be their wild-card round opponent in the playoffs, so they could face Philly two weeks in a row at Cowboys stadium... which would be weird.

I'll say this, though. Over the last few weeks, both New Orleans and Minnesota have shown serious flaws in their respective games, and seem to have peaked too early this year. It seems that the Eagles, Packers, and dare I say Cowboys are the teams to be most wary of in the NFC playoffs. I honestly believe that Dallas has a solid chance to get the playoff winless streak monkey off its back in a couple of weeks. As I mentioned, the defense is playing just spectacularly. After a slow start to the season from its pass-rush, Anthony Spencer, DeMarcus Ware, and Jay Ratliff are playing some of the best football of their careers. Linebackers Bradie James and Keith Brooking look great, and cornerback Mike Jenkins has a legitimate shot to be announced for his first Pro Bowl tomorrow night. On the other side of the ball, Miles Austin continues to give the kinds of performances no one expects from undrafted receivers from Monmouth, New Jersey. Jason Witten is taking advantage of defenses that are being more and more geared toward stopping Austin. And in case no one's noticed, Tony Romo has been one of the league's best quarterbacks since Thanksgiving. The whole team looks immensely more mature and focused than December-and-beyond fade-outs of the last decade (and beyond).

The running game also looks very good, though in the past couple of games Marion Barber has been frighteningly bad on 3rd- or 4th-and short runs. His whole career he's been nothing but a battering ram, but he can't seem to get first downs or touchdowns from about 1-2 yards away. I don't know why.

Again, I'm a rose-colored glasses kind of fan, and I'll continue to be.

I'd LOVE to see the kind of whooping of the Eagles this week that we saw the Eagles give the Cowboys in last season's finale. If Dallas turns in a 44-6 loss like they did a year ago, I might cry. It'd be terribly disappointing.

On another note, I've said it before and I'll say it again: Washington, to me, has looked like by FAR the worst team in the NFL all year long. I don't know how they have the wins they do. I've watched them play three or four times this season, and each time I swore I was watching a decent division III college team.

So here are the scenarios for the Cowboys regarding the playoffs:

They've clinched a birth. If they lose on Sunday, they'll be a wildcard team. If they beat the Eagles, they win the division and will most likely be the 3rd or 4th seed (which comes with a home playoff game). If they beat the Eagles, and the Vikings lose, and the Cardinals lose, they can get the 2 seed and a first-round bye.

Honestly, I'm not sure any of that matters, though. Even a loss on Sunday isn't devastating. It'll depend on how they look. If they lose by 20 or 30 points in a gutless performance, I'll be worried. I really don't think Philadelphia's the superior team.

Alrighty then...

My not-so organized thoughts from tonight's HUGE win over New Orleans:

During the pregame show on NFL Network I heard Deion Sanders talking about how the Cowboys can't win in December. He said, "But it's not all Wade Phillips' fault. People like Tony Romo have to take responsibility for winning big games like this..." (I didn't really hear the rest of what he thought because I was busy calling him an idiot.)

As I've pointed out before, Romo had played two unbelievable December games prior tonight. Tonight, by the way, made three straight.

Further evidence that coaching is the numero uno problemo in Dallas: The Cowboys are OBVIOUSLY a talented team, with the ability to beat even the best teams. But sometimes, they just don't show up. They act like they're not a talented team, or like winning games isn't that important. You will NEVER see stuff like that happen with coaches like Bill Belichick. If his team is the best on the field, they win pretty much 9 times out of ten. With Dallas and they're coco-puff aw-shucks slow-talking cup-cake coach, Wade Phillips, they often get wins by virtue of the other team being awful (witness this year's Redskins win... which wouldn't have been a win against anyone else in the league).

Jason Garrett called a pretty good game. There was a solid balance between passes and runs. The strengths of all of the offensive players seemed to be put to good use.

It couldn't have been clearer who the true #1 Cowboys receiver is. Miles Austin caught a 49-yard touchdown pass to finish up Dallas's opening drive. In the fourth quarter after a New Orleans touchdown (bringing them within 14), the Cowboys faced a 3rd and 4. A slant route pass to Roy Williams went right through his hands. Dallas had to punt, and the Saints drove right down the field to score again and bring themselves within a touchdown. On the ensuing Cowboys possession, they faced a 3rd and 7. Romo hit Austin on a short route, and Miles turned it into a 34-yard gain, sustaining the Cowboys drive, taking more time off the clock, and effectively winning the game.

Nick Folk is as good a kicker as my left foot wrapped in aluminum foil. He should have been fired at halftime of last week's game. Now he'll definitely be fired after this one. And I don't really care who replaces him. Can't be any worse.

Players of the game: Tony Romo, Miles Austin, Anthony Spencer, DeMarcus Ware (6 days ago he was being taken out of Cowboys Stadium on a stretcher... tonight he had two sacks, and two forced-fumbles -- the guy's an animal).

Dallas is now in a decent place to make the playoffs (something I didn't think was going to happen prior to tonight's matchup). They'll still have to win at least one of the next two (both against division rivals), and could very possibly have to win 'em both.

This is actually right where Dallas stood a year ago. They were 9-5, had to beat the Ravens to keep themselves in good shape for the playoffs, and fell apart in the fourth quarter of the last game ever at Texas Stadium. After some other favorable games kept Dallas in the hunt, they went to Philadelphia for a winner-makes-the-playoffs battle, and got humiliated 44-6, showing no heart or effort at all. That could happen this year too! Let's see...